Fertility-enhancing effect of oil-based contrast agents during hysterosalpingography and the variation of this effect within a 3-year follow-up period in infertile patients

Comparison of fertility outcomes between oil‑based and water‑based contrast media during hysterosalpingography: A meta‑analysis

Water-based and oil-based contrast media are both widely used in clinical practice for patients receiving hysterosalpingography (HSG). However, minor controversy exists about whether the oil-based contrast medium has a superior fertility-enhancing effect during HSG. The present meta-analysis intended to comprehensively compare the fertility outcomes of patients receiving either an oil-based or a water-based contrast medium during HSG. Web of Science, PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and China Science and Technology Journal Database were examined for literature comparing the fertility enhancement between oil-based and water-based contrast media during HSG up to November 10, 2022 and there was no cut off for studies published earlier than any given year. Data for clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy were extracted and analyzed. A total of 11 studies with 2,462 patients receiving oil-based contrast medium and 2,830 patients receiving water-based contrast medium during HSG were included. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were presented for outcome assessment, and the random effects model was utilized for all analyses. Publication bias was analyzed using Egger's and Begg's tests. The results indicated that the rate of clinical pregnancy was increased using oil-based contrast medium compared with water-based contrast medium [relative risk (RR) (95% CI), 1.29 (1.07, 1.54); P=0.006]. In addition, the rate of ongoing pregnancy [RR (95% CI), 1.39 (1.22, 1.59); P#x003C;0.001] and live birth [RR (95% CI), 1.41 (1.07, 1.87); P=0.016] were also increased using oil-based contrast medium compared with water-based contrast medium. However, miscarriage [RR (95% CI), 1.06 (0.61, 1.86); P=0.833] and ectopic pregnancy [RR (95% CI), 0.66 (0.18, 2.36); P=0.518] were not affected by using oil-based or water-based contrast medium. Begg's test and Egger's test suggested that no publication bias of clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy existed (all P>0.05), which indicated the stability of the present meta-analysis. In conclusion, the oil-based contrast medium enhances fertility outcomes compared with the water-based contrast medium in patients receiving HSG.

A meta-analysis of fertility and adverse outcomes in oil- and water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography

Infertility is the inability to conceive after one year of regular unprotected intercourse. There is a debate about the therapeutic effect of hysterosalpingography (HSG) and whether the selection of contrast materials makes a difference in the chance of subsequent conception. In this study, we aimed to compare the fertility-enhancing outcomes and adverse effects of oil and water-based contrasts in patients who underwent HSG. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus until September 2022. We included all primary randomized controlled trials evaluating the fertility-enhancing benefits of HSG in oil-based versus water-based contrast media in women of childbearing age with infertility. Eleven studies with 4,739 patients were selected. The pregnancy rate in the oil group was significantly higher than that in the water group [odds ratio (OR)=1.51 (1.23, 1.86), p<0.0001]. Our meta-analysis favored the oil group in abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding with the odd ratios of 0.73 (0.58, 0.91), (p=0.006) and 0.91 (0.46, 1.81), (p=0.79), respectively. Water-based contrast was associated with less intravasation [OR=2.09 (1.09-4.02), p=0.03]. There were no differences between the contrasts for miscarriage [OR=1.02 (0.71, 1.46), p=0.92], and ectopic pregnancy [OR=0.84 (0.27, 2.63), p=0.77]. HSG with oil-based contrast was related to a higher pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and intravasation rate. While HSG using a water-based contrast medium was associated with increased abdominal discomfort, vaginal bleeding, and the visual-analogue scale pain score.